Charts
Below are some of the Figures (#4, #5) referred to in the text of the Paper.
My several attempts at loading html files of the graphics for the other files failed abominably.
These are available by mail or fax. Just let me know (ray.hobbs@sympatico.ca)

Disengagement.Fig.04

Fig. #4

BAILEYS MODEL OF DISENGAGEMENT

F.G. Bailey, The Kingdom of Individuals: An Essay on Social Obligation
and Self-Respect Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993

1. Disengagement always involves a conflict of moralities,
a potential argument about where ones duty lies, and
the conflict is usually shaped as obligation to ones self
and duties owed to the organization.

2. The interaction which gives rise to disengagement is always
between unequals. In other words, from one perspective,
one partner has no hope of winning.

3. The organization is not only superior in power to the group,
but also, by definition, intent upon its exploitation.

4. Disengagement is not the same as open protest; it is either
covert, concealed from the eyes of the authorities, or else it
is camouflaged so that even though the authorities suspect
its presence, they cannot easily take action against it.

5. Disengagers are never social reformers with a conscious
political intent, or dissidents armed with programmes of
their own. The disengagers intention is not to change the
status quo, but to exploit it as it is and to preserve a private space where the organization cannot intrude.

6. Disengagement, to be successful, develops a mind which
can operate beyond the thought limits of the larger
organization, and creates an active, independent mind to
present issues or problems.